The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant received e-mail a notice of bidding with the same content as that of the above e-mail, and the Defendant was given a public notice of bidding with the same content as that of the above e-mail, where the e-mail and the e-mail companies participated in the bidding of the apartment of this case, and the e-mails operated by the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”). The representative meeting of the occupants of the apartment of this case was not practically engaged in the bidding process, and the Defendant participated in the bidding process, and the Defendant participated in the bidding process, and the head of other apartment management complaint (Seoul District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2017Da3078) and Y (1199 of Incheon District Court Decision 2017Da119). The Defendant, among the e-mail, was given a public notice of bidding with the e-mail company’s final selection of the e-tender company as if it was favorable to e-party.

2. The lower court determined that the bidding notice for the selection of the cleaning service company of the apartment of this case is a matter determined by the resident representative meeting, not by the apartment management director, and the selection of the business entity is also made according to the resolution of the resident representative meeting to select the lowest street bidder from among the participating companies in the relevant bidding. As such, the Defendant conspired with E in order for D to receive the successful bid, such as the instant facts charged, thereby allowing D to receive the successful bid.